All Christian denominations explained in 12 minutes
Gracious Rebel
Shipmate
in Purgatory
This is the rather ambitious title of a YouTube video I stumbled upon yesterday:
https://youtu.be/tzLS4O7YaUg?si=KTnfDS4y9zO2RimG
Few caveats
1) it comes from a North American perspective, so includes some churches that seem very obscure to this Brit, and omits others that I feel ought to be there (such as my own original heritage The Brethren....but then they'd say they weren't a denomination anyway)
2) it's clearly written from a Protestant background (probably Baptist as that's the first group he mentions) as I feel there's a better level of detail and understanding of nuances between different Protestant churches than there is for the Catholic and Orthodox churches, nevertheless he does capture something of the essence of a huge variety of different churches and belief systems.
3) Yes I know Catholics and Orthodox don't consider themselves as denominations, but as the True Church, (and he does refer to this in the presentation) so the title of the video is misleading, but I can see the difficulty of choosing a generic term that could apply to most of the groups he discusses
4) Having defined at the start what the defining characteristics of Christian churches are (basically from the Nicene Creed IIRC), at the very end he mentions two extra groups of churches, those who 'may not be' Christian, and those he feels are definitely not Christian. No surprises to find the Mormons and JWs in the latter category, but I was a little surprised at some of those he'd put in the 'may be not' group, in particular Seventh Day Adventists and Churches of Christ, who to my mind, although having particular distinctive features, are generally as orthodox (small 'o') as many of the other churches he has included.
Having said all that, I think all in all he's done a pretty good job, to include so much detail about so many churches, that is succinct and seems to be broadly accurate, in a fairly entertaining format. Would be interested to hear what others think!
Musing on this video, what hit me, was how much my time of the Ship has brought me to a position where I can even begin to appreciate and evaluate a video such as this. Its thanks to you guys here that I've picked up most of what I know about other denominations/churches outside my own experience.
How accurate do you think this video is about the churches you know best? Is it a useful tool in Religious education?
https://youtu.be/tzLS4O7YaUg?si=KTnfDS4y9zO2RimG
Few caveats
1) it comes from a North American perspective, so includes some churches that seem very obscure to this Brit, and omits others that I feel ought to be there (such as my own original heritage The Brethren....but then they'd say they weren't a denomination anyway)
2) it's clearly written from a Protestant background (probably Baptist as that's the first group he mentions) as I feel there's a better level of detail and understanding of nuances between different Protestant churches than there is for the Catholic and Orthodox churches, nevertheless he does capture something of the essence of a huge variety of different churches and belief systems.
3) Yes I know Catholics and Orthodox don't consider themselves as denominations, but as the True Church, (and he does refer to this in the presentation) so the title of the video is misleading, but I can see the difficulty of choosing a generic term that could apply to most of the groups he discusses
4) Having defined at the start what the defining characteristics of Christian churches are (basically from the Nicene Creed IIRC), at the very end he mentions two extra groups of churches, those who 'may not be' Christian, and those he feels are definitely not Christian. No surprises to find the Mormons and JWs in the latter category, but I was a little surprised at some of those he'd put in the 'may be not' group, in particular Seventh Day Adventists and Churches of Christ, who to my mind, although having particular distinctive features, are generally as orthodox (small 'o') as many of the other churches he has included.
Having said all that, I think all in all he's done a pretty good job, to include so much detail about so many churches, that is succinct and seems to be broadly accurate, in a fairly entertaining format. Would be interested to hear what others think!
Musing on this video, what hit me, was how much my time of the Ship has brought me to a position where I can even begin to appreciate and evaluate a video such as this. Its thanks to you guys here that I've picked up most of what I know about other denominations/churches outside my own experience.
How accurate do you think this video is about the churches you know best? Is it a useful tool in Religious education?
Comments
Now Churches of Christ US context. My first question would be which denomination to my knowledge:
There may be more.
Yes I spent some time sorting this out at a time when the third group was being troublesome.
I think I would say Calvin's own teaching on Eucharist was Mystical Participation, but there are many who would argue with that. Zwingli is of course, symbolic and Reformed Theology has at it root a blend of Zwingli's and Calvin's thought.
Just to add, Holiness came out of Methodism who then spawned Pentecostals who spawned Charismatics....
It is better to think of denominations as a very dysfunctional multigenerational family tree
To answer your final question.
As a former teacher of Religious Education in secondary schools in the UK, no, I would not use it in a lesson.
It is American and does not quite fit the UK scene.
It tries to say too much in too short a time.
It uses terms which most pupils would not understand.*
It makes too many generalisations, sometimes rather dismissively.
I would use some of the graphics, as stills, with time to unpack them.
*The level of ignorance is so great that this video would only be useful to those who already understand a considerable amount about Christianity.
Jesus is only a swear word for most teenagers.
Whether teaching about the branches of Christianity / denominations is part of the curriculum today I don’t know.
And for Scottish denominations it's less a tree than a wreath.
For something similar but better, I think, you might try this YouTuber. He also clearly comes from a Protestant background—I don’t think he ever says, but Independent Baptist would be my guess—and that shows sometimes. For example, he tends to equate “liturgical” with things like wearing “robes” and using candles, rather than following a set liturgy. But he really does try to be neutral and objective, and I’d say he succeeds much more often than not.
The Anglican charismatics who followed suit over here had very little contact with classic Pentecostalism either. My mother-in-law was an 'early adopter' - around 1964, and had no prior contact with Pentecostals as far as I'm aware.
That said, she soon made up for it as she would go between her Anglican parish and the local Pentecostal assembly for 'a top up'.
She would later take my future wife and sister-in-law and they were always frightened by the loud tongues-speaking and put off by the 'yea verily, yea verily' cod-Authorised Version language.
Things were somewhat different with the so-called restorationist 'new churches' of the 1970s-1990s as there was more direct Pentecostal influence alongside a strong Brethren, independent evangelical and Baptist contribution.
I'd put traditional Pentecostals and charismatics in the 'historic churches' as cousins rather than one 'begetting' the other as it were.
Other than that, I'd agree with the late Dr Andrew Walker that 'a charismatic is a Pentecostal gone middle-class.'
I've yet to watch the video. Will comment once I've done so.
I notice he said 'we' when referring to Presbyterians but 'they' when referring to everyone else.
So I suspect he's Presbyterian but perhaps of a different 'flavour' to our own Nick Tamen here aboard Ship.
I thought it was interesting where he started from. An RC or Orthodox would probsbly have started with pre-Schism or pre-Reformation Christianity and then gone through things chronologically.
@Gracious Rebel - The Brethren aren't as big a thing in the US, of course, but I suspect he'd include them among 'baptistic' independent evangelicals - which is fair enough, I think except I do think the Brethren have a more developed sense of 'ecclesiology' than most independent evangelicals.
Other reactions? Well, I think the issues between the Eastern - or Chalcedonian - and Oriental or non-Chalcedonian Orthodox are hard to address in a short video. There have been moves towards rapprochement but there are frustrating hold-ups on both sides.
I also think the 'filioque' controversy was passed over very quickly, but again that's a tricky one to tackle in a short video.
To be fair, he did sound as if he was trying to be balanced but I detected a quite cynical tone in his approach to Roman Catholicism.
I wouldn’t argue; I think that’s a good way to put it.
So I remember Calvin used “true Presence”?
It's entirely possible to be in the same church/denomination or Big C Church as someone else and yet find oneself a different page.
I'm always wary of anyone who is on a one-man (or woman) mission to rectify things they believe to be amiss. But then again, 'Athanasius contra mundum.'
I sense the guy is sincere and genuinely wants to learn from fellow believers across the board, but he does seem to have it in for Catholics and 'Progressives'.
I do think that they are extremely liberally theological people who topple over into 'not believing anything at all' territory but as with anything else I'm sure there's a gradual continuum.
We've got them in Orthodoxy too. Young male keyboard warriors.
He writes from a United States perspective, period.
Canada is an entirely different kettle of fish with a far different history. One of the biggest points of divergence between the two countries is the denominational mix and their origins.
He skips over the important split in the US between the Episcopalian and Methodist churches which was caused by the American revolution. See old Ship threads for this.
Then there are the ecumenical mergers, the Church of South India, the Uniting Church of Australia and my home United Vhurch of Canada. This is the second reason the Canadian Church scene is so different from the American.
He also omits the Restorationist churches including the Latter Day Saints. For an American this is a glaring omission.
Well, rightly or wrongly, he seems to take the Nicene Creed as a sine qua non for being Christian, which would definitely rule out Jehovahs Witnesses, and likely the Mormons. (Also the Unitarians as they exist today, though historically, they seemed to be accepted into the fold.)
And I've just been watching his first part on Baptists, and I thought he was maybe stretching the connections when he said that faith's individualism is the reason it's so popular in the South. Isn't the South generally regarded as more communal than the rest of the USA? I thought it was New England, specifically Roger Williams' Rhode Island, where the Baptists really let their freak flags fly.
Re: Heavenlyannie yes I have met a person who appeared to be in some kind of Christian cult - she had a homemade tattoo of a cross on her forehead and was really mentally vulnerable. This sort of thing is very tragic.
Also, in the 12-Step meetings I go to, occasionally someone will do an Alpha Course and get involved in HTB, but although they kind of join a HTB 'clique' within AA it never seems to do them any apparent harm. Sometimes it's just a phase.
Holy Trinity Brompton?
And, if so, is there something controversial about that institution?
My own view is that the situation is quite mixed and rather more varied than its opponents might expect. It's been discussed a fair number of times aboard Ship over the years.
They have a reputation for attracting bright young middle-class things but to be fair have branched out from that traditional base to some extent. They can also be controversial in some of their church-planting activities but equally have certainly revived or kept going churches which would otherwise have closed. The situation is quite varied there too. I know of instances where they have been accused of imposing a particular style on host-congregations but also know of an Anglo-Catholic priest who can't speak too highly of them because they allowed him to continue to do his thing and gave him unswerving support.
I think the effects of the First and Second Great Awakenings, and they way the Baptist and Methodist evangelists participated in those movements, particularly in rural and frontier areas, are a major factor.
But if a regional trait is at play here, I think it’s more the trait of preferring local control. One reason—and I emphasize that it is only one reason, though I do think it’s a significant reason—that Baptists thrived in this part of the country is the congregational nature of Baptists. People at a local level can get together, start a church and pick a preacher without any involvement from another authority needed. This was an attractive feature in a largely rural region.
Similarly, the circuit-riding set-up of the Methodists gave the Methodist Church a leg up in the South, because it meant that local congregations had regular ministry from circuit riders.
The Presbyterians and the Episcopalians, on the other hand, were hampered (maybe not the right word) by the requirements of clergy needing to meet educational and other requirements, and by a more hierarchical set-up. For the Presbyterians, the clergy educational requirement led to the formation of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church.